Title page for ETD etd-04132010-115519

Reliability and Validity Study of the Motivation for Fear (MOTIF) Survey

Degree

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)

Department

Psychology

Advisory Committee

Advisor Name

Title

Davis, Thompson

Committee Chair

Copeland, Amy

Committee Member

Elliott, Emily

Committee Member

Matson, Johnny

Committee Member

Park-Poaps, Haesun

Dean's Representative

Keywords

parallel analysis

factor analysis

validity

reliability

psychometrics

functions

assessment

anxiety

Date of Defense

2010-03-23

Availability

unrestricted

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine psychometric properties of a newly created, 24-item functional measure of fear and anxiety for typically-developing adults (the Motivation for Fear; MOTIF). Participants initially included 1,277 college students ranging in age from 18-35. Participants were asked to complete the MOTIF, the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF), the Sensation Seeking Scale- Form V, and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS). Analyses were conducted on those scoring above a minimum threshold on a well-normed measure of anxiety (the DASS). An exploratory factory analysis, using scree plot and parallel analysis, as well as oblique rotation was run on the qualifying 583 participants. Scree plot indicated either a 3, 4, or 5 factor solution. Parallel analysis indicated no more than 5 factors. Results converged on a 4-factor simple structure solution with 18 items. The four functions (labeled distress, comfort-seeking, tangible, and escape) explained 43% of the variance. Internal consistency was .739, .809, .636, and .506 for the distress, comfort-seeking, tangible, and escape functions, respectively. Validity assessments were conducted using the QABF, the DASS, and the SSS-V. Results from these analyses revealed preliminary support for convergent validity (i.e., for distress and tangible functions) and discriminant validity was established. Recommendations for improving the psychometrics of this measure include increasing content validity, improving internal consistency, and determining test-retest reliability. Strengths, limitations, clinical implications, and future directions are discussed.